Hate Speech should be forbidden.

[Warren Stupidity]

While "freedom of speech" protects political expression, it should not protect "hate speech", or so I've read here on DU. Cited as examples of "hate speech" are the satirical cartoons of Charlie Hedbo, the magazine whose editorial offices were attacked by gunmen yesterday leaving 12 dead (and perhaps two more dead today.)

What do you think? Should there be laws against "hate speech" of any sort?

I'd define hate speech except I can't come up with a definition that makes any sense. So for this poll , here is an example of a Charlie cartoon:

47 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	There should be laws against hate speech.
	3 (6%)
	There should not be laws against hate speech.
	44 (94%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[BeyondGeography]

1. That's a great cartoon

It sucks to be loved by assholes. Quite good. I can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to the principles that make that possible.

[pampango]

2. There should be laws against inciting violence but not against offensive speech. Obviously,

the difficult part is distinguishing between the two. Offensive speech can incite violence for a limited number of people. For most, offensive speech is a reminder that hatred is still out there which is something we need to know.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. "inciting violence" laws have been used to suppress legitimate political expression

So if you think those laws are a good idea, please vote "yes".

[pampango]

8. "So if you think those laws are a good idea, please vote "yes"." No thank you.

I believe that hate speech should not be forbidden. Why should I vote "yes"? I posted that hate speech let's most of us know that hate, and the crazies that go with it, are still out there?

Anti-terrorism laws have been misused. That does not mean I would vote to ban anti-terrorism laws. Speed limit laws have been misused. That does not mean there should not be speed limits.

[madokie]

3. There should not be a need for a law at all

if we'd keep our asses out of other peoples business there wouldn't be much hate to be worried about to begin with. After all the years of our policies as a country towards many of the people of the world is what ferments this hate we worry with today

[NightOwwl]

16. So true - and that applies to the individual as well.

People constantly judge and condemn; spending so much time blaming everybody and everything for their own unhappiness - meanwhile, they haven't a clue who the fuck they are.

The only person anyone has a right to judge, condemn, or control - is the face looking back from the mirror.

[madokie]

22. Yup

so true

[NightOwwl]

38. I was really suprised at your response in another thread.

When confronted with ideas that didn't conform to your long-standing beliefs you immediately went into attack mode.

That's cool, though. This just isn't the right forum for my thoughts.

Be well.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. NB that France has laws against "incitement to hatred".

The Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several prohibitions. Article 24 prohibits anyone from publicly inciting another to discriminate against, or to hate or to harm, a person or a group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for violating this prohibition is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those, as well as the suspension of some civil rights in some cases.

Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for defamation is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those punishments. The penalty for insult is up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to €22,500, or either one of those punishments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France#Freedom_of_the_press

Two Muslim groups in France tried to bring suit against Charlie Hebdo under these laws, the case was thrown out by the courts:

French cartoons editor acquitted

The editor of a satirical French magazine accused of insulting Muslims by reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has been acquitted.

A French court has ruled in favour of weekly Charlie Hebdo, rejecting accusations by Islamic groups who said it incited hatred against Muslims.

The cartoons were covered by freedom of expression laws and were not an attack on Islam, but fundamentalists, it said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6479673.stm

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Indeed they do.

[Fred Sanders]

21. So do you want to use the French definition or is it also one you find makes no sense?

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. It was ruled "not hate speech but legitimate satire" by a court, in case you missed that part (n/t)

[Warren Stupidity]

48. I think their law is horrible. But if you would like to use it as a model

for a hate speech law, for the purposes of this poll, feel free.

[Fred Sanders]

49. That would be OK, but you would have to change the OP to cite the full French law.

I actually prefer the hate speech laws of Canada, focused on incitement to violence and genocidal hatred.

[sendero]

7. Obviously....

... laws against "hate speech" cannot work because who decides where the line is? And what stops authorities from moving the line around when it suits them.

There are some problems in life for which there are no legislative remedies possible.

[Vinca]

9. One man's hate speech is another man's bread and butter (Faux, Limbaugh, Beck, etc.).

While I'd love to see them off the air, speech of any kind should be protected.

[dembotoz]

10. no because hate will defined by those in power

[LWolf]

11. I can't answer the poll

without a consensus on what constitutes "hate speech," and I don't know what the cartoon is saying, or referring to.

[el_bryanto]

13. According to Google Translate

The main text is - "muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists"

His speech balloon - "it's hard to be loved by idiots."

Bryant

[LWolf]

14. Okay.

I don't see that as hate speech.

[Fred Sanders]

31. OP used one of the mildest one, there are plenty more really gross ones...plenty....

[Fred Sanders]

20. You just make up your own definition and vote on it...it is a free association poll...??

[el_bryanto]

58. He clarified that if you oppose speech designed to incite violence you should vote yes

That's why I had to change my vote to yes.

Bryant

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. People who demand such things are inciting hatred and they should be sanctioned.

[NCTraveler]

15. Good op and worthy of discussion.

I think there are ways laws against hate speech could be written that I could fully get behind. I don't think I would have a problem with laws against hate speech as a secondary offense. There must be a primary offense of violence for there to be a hate speech crime. In other words, if someone were to assault someone, and it could be proven by way of the assaulter's words that the assault was conducted due to skin color, sexual orientation, disability, or other such definable characteristic, additional judicial action could be taken.

I used the words "I think" because some here have enlightened me in the past of the error of my ways. That being said I feel hate speech could be a secondary offense in the commission of a violent crime.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Using ones words to establish a state of mind

Motivating a crime is different. The criminal action is the crime not the expression of the motivation.

[NCTraveler]

39. I understand under current law that is the way it is.

That is understood by all. I am saying, if legislation was written properly, I could support making the motivation itself criminal during the commission of a violent crime. If a couple of guys are standing outside of what is know to be a gay bar, then assault an individual in the parking lot while making bigoted comments, I feel there should be an additional charge somehow related to hate speech that was the motivator behind the crime.

You simply stated the way current law works. Basic. "The criminal action is the crime not the expression of the motivation."

There are already laws on the books that actually take motivation into account. Terrorism for example. There are specific federal laws for terrorism. They aren't simply charged with multiple murders, they are also charged by the motivational forces behind there actions. Seems easy when it is directed at everyone, not so simple when it is directed at smaller groups.

[onehandle]

17. Ironic that this is being discussed at Democratic Underground.

Where a well organized faction of right-wing trolls control our 'free speech' while the owners shrug and count ad clicks.

[el_bryanto]

19. How do they control our free speech? What opinions are not allowed to be expressed at DU?

Obviously, the website has always been largely supportive of the Democratic Party, and as long as I have been here you haven't been allowed to encourage voting for third parties. But that's not new - so besides that limitation what other views aren't allowed to be expressed?

Bryant

[GGJohn]

57. I suspect he's complaining that his threads about guns are constantly getting locked

due to skinner's restrictions in GD.

[Fred Sanders]

65. Link?

[GGJohn]

68. It's pinned right at the top of the GD forum.

But here it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978

Tue Jul 29, 2014, 02:26 PM

Star Member Skinner (60,007 posts)





What can and cannot be posted in the General Discussion forum






This discussion thread is pinned and locked. It is closed to new replies.
The Statement of Purpose for the General Discussion forum says this:


Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden.

In an effort to provide greater clarity to members posting in this forum -- and to hosts trying to enforce this statement of purpose -- here is a detailed list of examples that should give some idea of where the line is drawn. As much as possible, we have attempted to describe current hosting practices rather than to place greater restrictions on what can be posted.

ISRAEL/PALESTINE
•Threads about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted in the Israel/Palestine Group.

•Open discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

RELIGION
•Threads about current events related to religion, and threads about church-state issues are permitted under normal circumstances.

•Threads about the existence/non-existence of God, threads discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of religion in general, and threads discussing the truth/untruth of religious dogma are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Religion.

•Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

GUNS
•News stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about efforts to strengthen or weaken gun control legislation in any jurisdiction in the United States, national news stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about high-profile gun crimes, and viral political content from social media or blogs that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.

•Local stories about gun crime and "gun porn" threads showing pictures of guns or discussing the merits of various firearms are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted in the Gun Control and RKBA Group.

•Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

SHOWBIZ
•Threads about showbiz/celebrity culture which do not have a political angle are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Entertainment.

•Open discussion of showbiz is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

SPORTS
•Threads about sports/sporting events which do not have a political angle are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Sports.

•Open discussion of sports is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES
•Threads promoting so-called "conspiracy theories" are not permitted and should be posted in the Creative Speculation Group.

DISRUPTIVE META-DISCUSSION
•Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.

•Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.

[NCTraveler]

40. What does freedom of speech have to do with du?

I have never seen freedom of speech shut down here. Ever.

[Fred Sanders]

79. Censorship and hidden posts because of rudeness at DU.....never have I heard of such a thing.

Mere "rudeness" is not in the SOP, is it?

[NCTraveler]

80. No shit. And some people think that has something to do with freedom of speech.

Really is a shame on a political message board that the concept isn't understood. So simple.

I have no clue what the SOP and rudeness have to do with freedom of speech.

[Fred Sanders]

81. Hate speech apparently is the most precious form of free speech for some folks.

[NCTraveler]

82. True.

It is often where the line is drawn in the oppression of speech worldwide. There is a reason it is often a part of free speech discussions. It is often where governments begin the process of rolling back speech. Many first world countries have limits on speech. It is one of the best things the US has going for it. The fact we, to this point, have kept our government in check with respect to that right. It is a beautiful thing. Still have no clue what it has to do with posts at du.

[Nye Bevan]

45. The difference is, private websites like DU can set and enforce community standards.

And it's not necessarily just "right-wing trolls" who vote to hide posts that say things like "JUST FUCK YOU".

[GGJohn]

51. What well organized faction of right-wing trolls are controlling our 'free speech'?

Do tell us.

[Fred Sanders]

18. You can not find a definition of "hate speech" that makes any sense, so what are you polling?

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I'm polling the sentiment expressed here that

something labeled by others as "hate speech" is wrong and ought to be forbidden.

[Fred Sanders]

36. With respect, without a definition of a poorly understood phrase, it is a push poll.

[Ron Obvious]

23. I can't believe this is even an issue

I suppose I was naive growing up, but I believed everyone valued freedom of speech and only totalitarian governments forbade it.

I have the right to say (e.g.) that all homosexuals will suffer the Lord's wrath and will burn in Hell.

I do NOT have the right to say that we should all go out and kill us some homos to please the Lord.

Why is this such a hard concept for so many people?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Actually, I think as it stands now, you DO 'have the right to say'

"we should all go out and kill us some homos to please the Lord."

Unless you then actually do go out and do such, or the people to whom you said it do so, in a fairly short period of time, so that they can say that it was your words that directly led to the murders.

That's your freedom of speech in action.

[Ron Obvious]

52. That's a boundary case...

But I appreciate anyone erring on the side of free speech.

[prayin4rain]

69. Isn't that how it should be? Can't I say what I want to say?

Not that I'd ever want to say that, of course. A government censoring it's people is worse.

[Capt. Obvious]

24. You think that's bad...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. I don't recall if it was comedy central or cartoon network, but

they actually did the same black written description bit over scenes of people 'crapping from their mouths' in episodes of South Park that I would have sworn originally showed the scenes. Kind of disgusting, but I can't for the life of me figure out who, among people willing to watch South Park in the first place, demanded that those scenes had to be censored.

[Capt. Obvious]

29. I think it's cartoon network

That was on recently.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. There are laws against hate speech, aren't there? In specific circumstances?

I could have sworn explicit hate speech that incites violence within a short period could land you in legal hot water.

I think any media should be free to reject to publish/play/carry any speech they carry hate speech. Let the haters have to create their own media to disseminate such, so they can be seen for what they are.

[branford]

54. "Hate speech" laws in the USA

really only refer to sentence enhancement for commonly recognized crimes. For instance, an assault against someone because of their religion or race would have a more severe sentence in some jurisdictions.

The types of crimes you're likely thinking of are "incitement" and riot types of offenses which normally involve purposely or knowingly advocating the commission of a criminal offense and where the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing that imminent unlawful, criminal action and likely to incite or produce that unlawful, criminal action. Many states have additional requirements like minimum number of participants. The "hateful" nature of the speech is not determinative of the crime.

As to privately owned media like newspapers, television and blogs, they have their own First Amendment tights, and can choose to publish whatever they wish (with very minor and difficult to establish exceptions like defamation). For example, neo-Nazis and other bigots can publish whatever they want without government interference, and with respect to the Charlie Hebo, some media outlets have republished the purportedly offensive cartoons, while other have chosen no to.

There are no "hate speech" laws in the USA comparable to the restrictions in Europe and Canada against inciting hatred of particular groups, and any attempt to pass such laws would be clearly unconstitutional.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. Thank you for the clarification. nt

[goldent]

27. Similar issue to pornography and depictions (real or acted) of extreme violence.

[dissentient]

34. Who is going to define what hate speech is? The government. No thank you

As already noted, this is a big step on the road to fascism.

Totalitarian and fascist governments have used concepts like hate speech to forbid people from criticizing the government quite often in history. Off to jail you go for voicing dissent against the government.

That isn't the kind of country I'd want to live in.

[Atman]

35. How many of these same people are FOR "hate crime" legislation?

Personally, I'm not one of them. A crime is a crime. You kill someone, it is a crime. You harass someone, it is a crime. There shouldn't be special categories of crime. On our three-hour car ride to visit family on Christmas, this subject came up. My son and I were pretty much in agreement that killing is killing. Killing, say, a cop, shouldn't be any more "special" than killing a teacher. Everyone's life is valuable, and when you carve out little niches for who is more worthy of protection, you degrade all of us. I was surprised to learn, after more than 30 years of marriage, that my wife didn't agree. People who kill cops deserve extra punishment.

Being a cartoonist who has received death threats for portraying George Bush in a bad light (yes, they were forwarded on to the proper authorities), I couldn't disagree more. I was shocked to learn my wife felt this way. You choose your job. You know the consequences. She used to work on a medical floor in nursing and got blood spilled on her, and all sorts of nastiness...she didn't get "hazard pay." She wasn't special.

I would not accept ANY legislation against free speech. Even for Fox "News." The best way to combat vile speech is to counter it with truth.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. I have no problem with penalties for criminal acts that

change based on motivation.

[Atman]

41. Be specific.

That is why we have judges and juries.

If you rob a convenience store of a pack of diapers or a can of soup to feed your family, a judge and jury will take your circumstances into consideration. If you kill the store clerk in the process, the judge and jury will take that into consideration. Do you deserve an extra ten years, or the death penalty, if a cop happened to be involved and tried to stop your crime? What if a teacher tried to stop you? What if the 7-11 janitor tried to stop you? What if a member of the LGBT community tried to stop you, and one of them was killed in the process? Do you deserve EXTRA punishment for killing the cop, but not for killing the gay man/woman? Teacher? Nurse? Janitor? Just asking.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Sure the laws have to be written correctly.

But motivation is already taken into account for crimes - consider the various types of murder, from self defense to premeditated, from not a crime, to capital offense.

So assaulting a person specifically because they are a hated class of person is a different category of assault from assaulting a person in a barroom brawl for no particular reason at all, and I am fine with the law having different categories of penalties for different categories of assault.

[Atman]

46. What is a "hated class of person?"

That's where it becomes icky. Do I get extra time for offing a Fox "News" host, or do I get preferential treatment? Who is deciding which of us are more hated than others? Maybe I hate clowns. They give me nightmares. Is killing clowns then a hate crime? And damn, those people on Glee are pretty creepy. Another twenty years, without parole!

See where I'm going with this?

[jberryhill]

47. Do you know the difference between trespassing and burglary

Let's say someone gets caught entering someone else's home.

If they just walked in to hang out, it's trespassing and no big deal.

If they walked in to commit some other crime, it is burglary, and a much bigger deal.

The physical act is the same in both instances, but the offense and penalty vary wildly depending on what the person was thinking.

[Atman]

50. So why does the uniform you're wearing have a bearing on your death?

Just asking, again. No one forced Officer Smith to take up a badge. Why is his life special, but my wife's isn't because she's merely a doctor who heals people and cures illnesses? Why is my gay cousin's life more special than my straight son's?

[jberryhill]

59. I'm not wearing a uniform

But in criminal law mens rea isn't a matter of making one victim any more special than another - it's about the state of mind of the actor and the social threat posed by that actor.

If I had to guess, I would suppose that most assaults and murders occur between people who know each other. People kill other people for all sorts of "reasons".

So let me give you two scenarios...

1. Aaron is married to Barbara. Barbara divorces Aaron and runs off with his longtime friend Charlie. Out of jealousy, Aaron plots to kill Charlie and one day he shoots Charlie to death.

2. Alfred is a Nazi. He hates Jews. He goes out looking for a Jew, finds one and shoots him to death.

In terms of maintaining social order, to whom is Aaron a threat? Is his murder of Charlie part of some generalized animus toward a class of people historically threatened with violence?

Aaron is a threat to those with whom he is socially involved. Aaron is no threat to a class of people who encounter Aaron-minded individuals on a regular basis. He wanted to kill a specific person - Charlie. He did it, and it's done with. After killing Charlie he might drive down to the diner, take up the seat next to mine at the counter, order a cup of coffee and is no actual threat to me whatsoever.

Alfred is a bigger social problem. His motivation does not arise from some kind of particularized animus against his victim, but he's out to get any number of unspecified others who have no way of avoiding him or knowing that he's out to get them until it is too late. Additionally, Alfred's mindset is exemplary of a type of generalized social threat which persons of his target class encounter on a regular basis, and who live in fear of such persons.

It's not about the "status of the particular victim", it's about the mindset of the criminal in question, and the wider effect of that mindset on society generally.

Now you could say something like, "But what if the killer hates doctors and is out to get doctors? Doesn't that constitute a wider class of victims than a particularized assault or killing?" While superficially true, it is also the case that there is not a reinforcing organization of "we hate doctors" types who contribute to crimes against doctors, and against which there is a social priority of deterring with particularity. Nor is there any oppressive daily concern in the medical community about such organizations.

In the case of police, the theory seems to be that someone who is willing to go after persons known to be armed for the purpose of maintaining order and safety, is exceptionally dangerous and is going after those who are ostensibly charged with protecting others against dangerous persons in general.

So I think the idea is an attempt to calibrate criminal sentences in accordance with a perceived level of danger posed by the criminal - not some prize based on the status of the victim.

Think about Aaron again. Now, sure, we don't want people with poor impulse control to the point of murderous action running around at large, but he wanted to kill Charlie and he's already done that. So that horse has left the barn. I'm not really any safer with Aaron off the street than I was before. In the case of Alfred, though, there are a lot of people who are safer with him off the street, because his intent is a continuing threat to a class of people who already have the social handicap of having to put up with people like him to varying degrees of expression.

Whether those theories are empirically fruitful is debatable, but it's not as if there isn't some sort of rationale behind them, and it is kind of surprising that it would be some sort of mystery as to why there might be this kind of "socially undesirable aggravating factor" as a consideration in sentencing.

[Atman]

63. Thank you.

That was a very intelligent, well thought-out response, and I appreciate it.

I won't say I entirely agree with it, but I do understand where you're coming from. At least you are able to articulate the differences.

[jberryhill]

71. "I do understand where you're coming from"

I'm from Delaware.

What I sometimes find annoying on DU is the sequence of:

"Why do some people believe X?" and if that is followed up by a "they believe it because of Y", then the rejoinder assumes that the person on the other end of the discussion is one of those people which believes X.

I suppose it is just part of the way that people interact these days, as it seems to be the assumption that in order to understand an opinion, then one also has to agree with that opinion.

I find it particularly annoying because sometimes I don't have an opinion on a question, but have heard some of the arguments one way or the other. Then, in order to explore those arguments with someone who does have an opinion, or is unfamiliar with counterarguments, one has to be tagged with being in one "camp" or another on the question.

It's just gotten hard to discuss anything of substance on DU.

[jberryhill]

43. At DU? Or generally

Post some nazi propaganda cartoons and see how long they last. Then you will know the range of expression tolerated here.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. generally. Sorry thought that was clear.

[jberryhill]

61. Oh, okay

There are certainly cartoons which would not be tolerated at DU.

There are also countries which do have such laws, and which have not had a substantial impact on the quality of political debate in them.

[Amishman]

53. what? NO!

We need to remove restrictions on free speech, not create more.

There is far too many people who default to trying to ban anything they do not like.

[randome]

56. Most of the world does not believe in our notion of free speech. Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

However: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Technically, as a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly rather than a treaty, it is not legally binding in its entirety on members of the UN.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[mb999]

60. Who's going to define what is considered hate?

The GOP and the corporations? The police? We are already over-policed. I'd like to preserve what's left of the first amendment even if it means dealing with hate speech. What we need is to bust the corporate big media cartel under antitrust regulations more than laws against hate speech.

[jwirr]

62. I voted against laws for hate speech because like the author of this poll see the definition is too

hard to determine. Where do we draw the line?

[bemildred]

64. I don't need protection from words, any words, I need protection from people.

Let them talk all they want, as long as I don't have to listen unless I choose. Let them sell their babble without coercion or violence and see how far they get.

"Extremism thrives on other people’s extremism, and is inexorably defeated by tolerance."-- Juan Cole

[Orsino]

66. It should be regulated.

Last edited Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

WithOUT chilling preemptive strikes against hate speech, we can still hold its proponents responsible for direct or indirect incitement that endangers civil rights.

[brooklynite]

77. Well then - good to know we all agree on the same definition

Don't we?

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Fuck No.

That is all.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. The advocacy I see for 'hate speech laws' on DU seems intended to create anti blasphemy laws

and the advocates seem to believe that unending diatribes by clergy and believers against LGBT people should be protected while any criticism of those people for attacking LGBT should be forbidden. I never ever see such people oppose the religiously based crappy insults that constantly stream from religious figures all over the world, I never see them saying 'we need hate speech laws to prevent them from saying God hates gays and that gays are disordered and such'. Nope. What they do is get upset if anyone mocks religion.
They don't mind hate speech if they are the ones using it what they don't like are heretics and questioners of their authority.

[YoungDemCA]

72. Are you saying that racism, misogyny, and homophobia should be permitted?

Because that's what I hear, when you say "hate speech of any sort."

Have you asked people of color, women, and members of the LGBT community what their views on allowing this type of speech are?

[GGJohn]

74. Of course it should be permitted, while at the same time condemned.

The old saying: I may condemn what one says, but I will defend their right to say it.

Hate speech should not be banned, it should be countered with counter speech.

[Man from Pickens]

76. Yes absolutely

It was not long ago at all that a law against unpopular speech could have been used against LGBT advocates, and it very well could be the case again in the future.

I'm sure you hold more than one opinion for which the protection of free speech allows you to express it without fear of being thrown in jail for saying what you believe. For example, saying that the elites in our society are largely sociopaths is something those sociopaths would consider "hate speech"; and given that those sociopaths run the show, who would save you from them in the absence of freedom of speech?

[LittleBlue]

78. It must be permitted

Else free speech doesn't exist.

[hrmjustin]

73. No. While it is disgusting we must remember we have freedom of speech.

[Rob H.]

75. Voted 'No'

The answer to speech with which you disagree is more speech, not less.

[Initech]

83. Who needs butter? I've got plenty!